Right-wing journalistic cesspool "Newsmax" is conducting a !!!!!VERY IMPORTANT POLL!!!!! regarding bathroom Casanova GOP Senator Larry Craig, and you damned well better appreciate the significance of this baby:

Vote in This Urgent Poll

NewsMax.com, one of America's leading online news services, is conducting an urgent national online poll.

NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media. Additionally, NewsMax's results will be shared with every major radio talk show host in America.

Fuckin A', 'cuz if there's one thing you can count on, it's that CNN is waiting on tenterhooks to know what the drooling whackjobs who read NewsMax.com think.

Following a dinner they shared in Baghdad, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Wednesday that he expects Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to report to President Bush and Congress next month that American troops are exhausted by the war effort there.

Durbin, speaking to a group of Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago, said that during a trip through Iraq earlier this month he saw a military that has made some progress toward improving security since a manpower "surge" last February. But he said U.S. troops were being pushed to the limit and that Petraeus concurred.

WTF? What's with those nancy boys? I mean, we're praying for them, we're wearing red and we've got yellow ribbons on our cars. Jesus, what more do they want us to do? Ungrateful bastards.

I hate to interrupt your determined efforts to ignore all of the exciting developments on Canada's political scene over the last week or so, but I have something I'd like to chat about.

Apparently, over the last several days, I have, in my own quiet way, infuriated one Mr. Patrick Ross (and, by really creepy association, his good buddy, the ego that walks like a man, Werner Patels), to the point where he has furiously promised to track me down and give me a stern spanking. Well, OK, actually, he's promised to track me down and reveal my identity on his blog to all of those misbegotten cretins who have the necessary lack of taste to read his blog.

Now, I'm well aware that neither of those two misfits is a member of the BTs, but it seemed like the perfect opportunity to at least come to an understanding on an absolutely minimal level of civility that we should be prepared to uphold in the Canadian blogosphere.

As I'm sure you know, I choose to blog anonymously. That's my choice and, regardless of what others might think of what I write, I typically expect those people to respect my privacy. Critics of mine are more than welcome to leave dissenting comments at my blog (within reason), and are just as welcome to write scathing denunciations of me on their own blogs, and more power to them. But, regardless of how heated things get, I've always considered one's bloggy anonymity to be sacred and not to be trifled with.

Consider your own BT blogroll -- it clearly has a number of anonymous bloggers and, while I've taken exception with a number of them over the lifetime of my blog, it's never occurred to me -- not for a second -- to spend any time tracking them down so I can expose their real identities. My preference is to link to what they write, use my vastly superior intellect and reason to tear it to bloody shreds, and leave it at that. Once your credibility has been taken out to the parking lot and beaten senseless, it really doesn't make any difference whether you sign your name to it or not, don't you agree? So here's my point.

While you clearly have no influence over the unprincipled douchebags that are Patrick Ross and Werner Patels, you most certainly have some power over the BT membership. So I'm going to throw out a challenge here: I'm challenging you to take a public and unambiguous stand, and denounce, in the strongest possible language, the practise or encouragement of, directly or indirectly, "outing" anonymous bloggers just because you don't like what they write. And, just to be fair and balanced, I'm making that challenge to every other political blogging collective in Canada.

Let me be clear as to what I'm talking out above. I don't just mean condemning bloggers who are actively trying to out other bloggers. I'm also including bloggers who, while they may not be engaging in that activity themselves, are clearly egging on others to do it, either on their own blogs or by way of comments on others' blogs. In short, anyone who is seen as promoting that activity in any way and in any forum should be considered just as guilty as those doing it.

(Naturally, there should be exceptions, as in the case of any anonymous someone who has gone beyond just being annoying and is into actual harassment. In cases like that, outing is simply being defensive, but that's obviously under exceptional circumstances.)

And, finally, here's the rest of the challenge: Anyone caught violating the sanctity of blogging anonymity -- either directly or indirectly as I've defined above -- will have their membership in their corresponding blogging aggregator rescinded immediately and permanently. No excuses. No exceptions. No appeal.

As I said, this will in no way affect Messrs. Ross or Patels since, as far as I know, they don't belong to any aggregator (not surprising, since I can't imagine any aggregator desperate enough to want them.) But if it can be brought to your attention that any of your BT members are cheering them on, I'm challenging you to drop those members from the BTs. And, as I said, I'm making the same challenge to every aggregator in Canada. It's only fair.

So, Stephen, what say you? You and I both know we're never going to see eye-to eye but, regardless of our differences, we should be able to agree that there are some lines that we're simply not going to cross, and we're prepared to punish those people who do.

BY THE WAY, I did email Stephen Taylor directly regarding this issue; I'm not just counting on him eventually reading this blog. So far, nothing.IN FACT, I just received a perfectly respectable and thoughtful e-mail from Mr. Taylor, and we're going to chat further. And I want to publicly thank him for being willing to discuss this.

It's just so adorable to watch the Wankersphere desperately try to compare apples with oranges:

Time for a Clinton-era talking point

What a politician does in his personal life, including his sex life, is irrelevant to voters provided it has no effect on his ability to perform his duties.

Or is this Senator Craig thing somehow worse simply because he wasn't doing this in the position of employer over employee?

Why, yes, Jarrett, having a consensual, heterosexual affair in private is exactly the same as cruising public bathrooms in airports for some quick, man-on-man action, except that Clinton-Lewinsky was clearly more abhorrent since it involved an abuse of power, or something like that.

Except for the inconvenient detail that Monica Lewinsky was not a White House intern at the time of that affair -- she'd already left that position and had a government job. But don't let that stop you from drawing horrifically lame analogies, Jarrett. It's what you do best.PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE TIME: Just in case Jarrett tries to move the goalposts and suggest that it was worse with Clinton since he had an affair with a "teenager," well, we can nip that bit of fiction in the bud right now.

And that's why they call us the "reality-based community." But you knew that, right?

AFTERSNARK: It's frightening that Jarrett is, according to his profile, a first-year law student, and yet he refuses to distinguish between something which is a criminal act and something which is not. What's up with that?

You can rest assured that, when I ascertain your true identity (and I will), I will publish it here on the Nexus. Then I'll mail copies of your comments to your friends and family.

That's really amusing, Patrick, since my family knows I write this blog, and my father's been dead for a few years now. But, hey, knock yourself out.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: One has to wonder what it is about blogging anonymity that so enrages emotional infants like Patrick Rosshole and Weiner Patels.

It's more than a little amusing to take their illogical rants and eviscerate them slowly and methodically, only to have them respond with. "Oh, yeah? Well, I'm going to find out who you are and tell the world!" It's exactly akin to logically and meticulously deconstructing someone's inane position, only to have them reply with, "Well, OK, but ... but ... you're ugly!"

Quite simply, it's the mark of someone with absolutely nothing of any value to say, except that they feel they have to say something. Mr. Ross has no meaningful comebacks to the intellectual beatings he's been taking lately, so his only recourse is to get deeply personal and vindictive. The word "sad" doesn't begin to describe that.

One might also wonder why neither Ross nor Patels seem all that interested in outing any of the anonymous writers over at the Blogging Tories, since there do seem to be a number of them (at least at first glance): "Halls of Macadamia", "the blog quebecois", "Gay and Right," etc. There you go, guys -- what could be more fun than outing a gay conservative? Wouldn't that be just a hoot? Fucker wants to hide behind an anonymous blog? Not while you two are around, eh?

But, strangely, you don't hear much squealing from Weiner about that, do you? One guesses that it's not anonymity that so bothers him; it's just anonymous bloggers who slap him around. Yes, that's the issue, isn't it? Weiner hates anonymity, but if you play nice and don't give him a hard time, he's cool with that. How utterly selective, wouldn't you say?

In any event, I'm sure Patrick is working his little fingers into stubbies tracking me down. After all, it beats actually addressing the issues or learning anything. 'Cuz that stuff is, like, hard work.

P.P.S. One can only imagine how productive Mr. Ross might be if he spent as much time investigating, say, political corruption as he did chasing anonymous bloggers around the Internets and threatening people. He might actually end up writing something that was worth reading.

Blogging anonymously is tantamount to giving in and letting those jerks win.

Oh, sniffle, sniffle, whine, whine, boo hoo. Grow a pair, Weiner, for God's sake. Write your shit and take your lumps, or get the fuck out of the blogosphere and leave it for those of us who aren't snivelling little turds. God, what a nancy boy.

And as for Weiner's grip on reality:

If you lash out at others, you'd better be prepared to do so under your real name -- doing it anonymously is what's called -- at its most polite -- "trolling" and frowned upon. Even an insult has more credibility when it's applied by an actual person, rather than an anonymous troll.

Yeah, you read that right. Mr "Quality Blog" doesn't even understand what the word "troll" means. What a twit. What a spectacular twit. Once again, Weiner:

Now piss off.BY THE WAY, Weiner, you pathetic, little snot rag, allow me to make what I think is a salient observation. If you managed to tear yourself away from your preening self-absorption over the last week or so, you might have noticed that we in the Left-o-sphere kind of blew the lid off a fairly big story, with credit going to progressive bloggers such as "blogging a dead horse," "The Galloping Beaver," "POGGE," "Dr. Dawg," "Red Tory" and others.

Notice a pattern there, Weiner, you clueless prat? Why, yes, they're all anonymous bloggers (with the exception now of Red Tory, since you so classlessly pasted his name all over the blogosphere like the petulant six-year-old that you are). So while all those faceless folks were out there digging up the news and "getting things done," where the fuck were you? Right ... I figured as much.

So, if you'll excuse us now, Weiner, we'll leave you and your full-length mirror in private, where I'm sure you'll both be very happy together. We're off to break another story.

We'll keep you posted.

P.S. By the way, Weiner, there was another amusing development that we faceless ones were all over as well. I notice you gave that one a pass, too. Quelle surprise.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Given that the demented and egotistical lunatic Werner Patels pretty much "outed" Red Tory, and Ti-Guy followed suit shortly thereafter in the comments section here, I figured it's only fair that I come clean with who I really am. There. Satisfied?

Back here, I snickered about how GOP Senator Larry "The Bathroom Bandit" Craig was just looking for trouble by trying to plead innocence after he already pleaded guilty. Apparently, it's better than that. Way better.

According to the LA Times, Craig is letting himself in for a world of hurt (free registration required):

Craig may try to withdraw pleaLegal analysts say such a move could expose the senator to a more serious charge.

Well, fucking duh! If you cop a plea to get a lesser charge, then try to renege on that plea, prosecutors tend to get a bit pissed. But let's read on:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Larry E. Craig said he had retained a lawyer to examine his case, suggesting that he may attempt to withdraw his guilty plea. That may be possible in some circumstances, legal experts say, but he would risk having more serious charges reinstated and the public exposure of other details of the restroom incident that has imperiled his congressional career.

Ordinarily, Minnesota law allows defendants to withdraw plea agreements in limited situations where there has been "manifest injustice." Courts have interpreted that narrowly -- where prosecutors have not upheld their end of a plea bargain, for example, or where a defendant was denied access to a lawyer. Craig, an Idaho Republican, waived his right to a lawyer, and the $500 fine he paid for disorderly conduct was typical for a first-time offender.

In practice, judges are given discretion in individual cases. Craig could argue that the state would have little to lose by allowing him to rescind the deal, which he now says was a mistake, because prosecutors could still go to court with the testimony of the undercover officer involved in the sting that resulted in his arrest.

He also could argue that he never appeared before a judge -- he worked out the deal in correspondence with Minnesota prosecutors after he got back to Washington -- and did not have the opportunity to have all of his rights explained to him.

Some lawyers said that -- given that Craig now claims that he didn't do anything wrong -- some judges would oblige any effort to reopen the case.

"If I was the judge, I would be more than happy to allow him to come back and explain himself," said Eric Newmark, a Minneapolis criminal defense lawyer who practices in the Hennepin County District Court where Craig was convicted. "It is a pretty serious thing to go into court, swear to tell the truth, say what you did, and then [later] tell the media that you didn't do it."

The downside of doing that would be the reinstatement of a more serious charge against him that was dropped as part of the plea agreement. And that charge -- invasion of privacy linked to his allegedly peeking through a bathroom stall door -- is punishable by up to a year in jail. He would also run the risk of a trial where more embarrassing facts could come out, lawyers said.

Several lawyers in Minnesota said that Craig could have avoided the embarrassment of having to admit committing a crime if he had first hired a lawyer. Minnesota, like many states, has a program that allows first-time offenders to have charges against them dropped after a year if they do not engage in any further misconduct.

"Very likely, a lawyer would have gotten one of those dispositions . . . and Craig could have said, 'I never admitted I did anything wrong,' " said Stephen M. Simon, a professor at the University of Minnesota law school who runs a legal defense clinic that represents indigent inner-city men charged with prostitution and indecent exposure, among other crimes.

"A lot of these men . . . are horribly embarrassed," Simon said. "That explains the dynamics of him not going to a lawyer."

Go for it, Larry. Try to weasel out of this one. We all need the entertainment.

Note: With respect to the Blogging Tory search immediately above, I'm interested in the perfect combination of search words or phrases that will be as generous to the BTs as possible, but still minimize the number of irrelevant hits. At the moment, I'm searching simply on the phrase "regional advertising" since that phrase seems to be the operative one in this scandal, but I'm open to better search criteria.

Fair and balanced, that's our motto. Yessir, fair and balanced.

OK, I'M A BIT CONFUSED: After reading the Globe article carefully, here's the part that confuses me:

Lise Vallières, who acted as the official agent for former MP Jean Landry in the Quebec riding of Richmond-Arthabaska, said yesterday she had just discovered that she was part of the initial case against Elections Canada. "Nobody ever asked anything of me," she said. In an interview, Mr. Landry complained that the Conservative Party placed $26,000 in his campaign account during the last election, and then used it to buy advertising that was not specifically related to his own campaign.

"It wasn't for me," Mr. Landry said of the ads.

Elections Canada reimburses 60 per cent of the election expenses of candidates who get at least 10 per cent of the votes in their riding.

Mr. Landry reached the 10-per-cent threshold, but he said he does not qualify for a reimbursement on the $26,000 because he has no proof the advertising was authorized by his official agent.

"Elections Canada does not have to reimburse a cent, because we don't have invoices," Mr. Landry said.

As I've understood it until now, the money that was "loaned" to candidates was meant to be in-and-out but, from what I read above, those local candidates were actually intending to claim the 60% Elections Canada reimbursement on it, is that right? But they can't because they have no actual receipts.

However, why are those local candidates complaining (if they are)? It wasn't meant to be their money in the first place, so one would think that, from that perspective, it all works out for them. (Certainly, trying to claim a reimbursement on that phony cash strikes me as obvious fraud, but it doesn't seem like those candidates can claim an actual loss, can they?)

On the other hand, I can see how that laundering scheme allowed the federal party to exceed the campaign limits. But I'm still not sure what the locals are complaining about. What's the actual basis for the lawsuit here?

If someone wants to write up a "Conservative Corruption for Dummies" piece related to this, I'll be happy to post it as a main piece.

Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander knows a scam when he sees one (emphasis in original):

News Flash: You Can't Pay Yourself Rent

Not that Wal*Mart didn't try, bless their little hearts:

Madison - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has avoided millions of dollars in state taxes by paying rent on 87 Wisconsin properties in a way that the state Department of Revenue calls an "abuse and distortion of income."

As a result, state tax auditors say, Wal-Mart owes more than $17.7 million in back corporate income taxes, interest and penalties for 1998, 1999 and 2000. More could be due for later years.

[...]Wal-Mart says it has not done anything wrong but is merely taking advantage of an overlap of state and federal tax laws: To reduce its taxes and costs, it sets up one subsidiary to run its stores and another subsidiary to own its real estate. The operating subsidiary pays rent to the real estate subsidiary and takes a tax deduction for the rent, even though that money eventually ends up in the corporation's own pocket.

The trick Mr. Harper’s Cons have apparently used was, after they spent the full allowable campaign limit $18,300,000.00 they discovered some local candidates had not used up their spending limits. The central party apparently “gave” the local candidates some $1,200,000.00 in total to “use up” the remaining spending limits.

The clever party apparatus puppies in Con-land then had the local candidates “give” back the money on the very same day. The central party operators then spent the “new” local candidate “donations” on targeted regional election campaign advertising.

I'm guessing the analogy will be totally lost on Raphael. Their brains just don't work that way.

And when it comes to some friendly banter, there's nothing that members of the Wingnut-o-sphere enjoy more than the hearty and healthy exchange of ideas, the tussle of sharp minds in intellectual conflict, the clash of opposing viewpoints, the ... the ... hello?

BONUS GOTCHA(?) - Inspired by CC's unique level of commitment (trolling posts four days old from his own blog -- weak), I decided to do some searching through some Vizu polls posted on this site.

I managed to track down the following: one vote registered from Oak street, near Linden Avenue and Victoria Street south, in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. Canadian Cynic's blog identifies him as being from Waterloo, and he's clearly a Nexus reader. Could this be the address of the oh-so-Cynical one? I would be willing to wager so.

This is, of course, the predictable behaviour of the bottom-dwelling, intellectual dregs of the blogosphere -- pathetic retards who can't possibly formulate a cogent argument or rebut a bit of devastating logic, so they're reduced to childishly trying to ruin someone's blogging livelihood. But here's something for Mr. Ross to chew on.

Let's say he publishes what he thinks is my address. And he gets it wrong. But based on that information, someone who's not a fan of mine decides to take matters into his own hands, and wanders over to said address. And commits violence or something similar.

Whoops.

Like I said, I hope Patrick knows a good lawyer. 'Cuz, not being an idiot, I've got all the screenshots now, and I'll be just plumb deee-lighted to testify in court if it comes to that.

So go wild, Patrick. Do something unspeakably stupid. What can possibly go wrong?

P.S. By the way, Patrick, just FYI, I've never participated in a Vizu poll (or any other kind of poll) on your crappy, embarrassing excuse for a blog. Ever. But don't let that stop you from going all full-metal Steve Janke and Google Earthing where you think I live. The hilarity might be worth it. Until someone gets hurt, of course. But that's kind of your problem, then, isn't it?

P.P.S. One wonders what Patrick's readers think of his proclivity for providing allegedly anonymous online polls, only to now reveal that he subsequently spends his time poring over the corresponding IP addresses for the sole purpose of "outing" some of those voters. If I were an actual voter, I'd be more than a little creeped out.

On the other hand, if you're a regular reader of Patrick's, I'm guessing you're already comfortable with that level of cesspoolitude. That's just a guess, of course.

Shorter Aaron (Spanky) Unruh: "If you ignore the overwhelming evidence that's been flowing through the blogosphere for the last two days and let me concentrate solely on just that one teeny, tiny, publicly-retracted inaccuracy, then I think I have a devastatingly witty rejoinder, wouldn't you say?"

MORE SPANKERIFIC, WINGNUTTERY GOODNESS: Spanky is pretty much creaming himself over this, isn't he?

Screwupandretractitude Update: CC has retracted his dumb, unfounded accusation. That is usually what people do with dumb, unfounded accusations after they’ve been caught out, isn’t it? Really. Perhaps if someone would learn to do a little research, he wouldn’t have to print out retractions.

Spanky's got a point. Only cowards print public and unambiguous retractions. On the other hand, it takes a real man to make fun of female genital mutilation and, when he's ripped to pieces for it, go back quietly under cover of darkness and edit out the juicy bits of that post and hope no one notices.

P.S. Hey, Spank ... when can we expect a retraction for that piece of dumb, unfounded, badly-researched dreck you posted on gay marriages and life spans? Oh, right:

But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute” whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this? And if you don’t like the articles I link, then treat the presence of my name at the top of posts as a warning: “Oops, my feelings are about to be hurt, had better not read.”

Public restroom aficionado and GOP Senator Larry Craig is having major second thoughts about that guilty plea (emphasis added):

The airport incident occurred June 11. Craig signed his plea papers on Aug. 1, and word of the events surfaced Monday. The senator issued a statement Monday night that said, "In hindsight, I should have pled not guilty."

He repeated that assertion at the Idaho news conference. "In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision," he said. "I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away."

Sadly for Larry, his plea doesn't give the opportunity for a mulligan:

4. I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent.

5. I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a guilty plea.

Yeah, the law's kind of tricky that way. You'd think a sitting U.S. Senator would know that.

I realize I'm belabouring the obvious but, when the current federal government tells Canadians, blatantly and to their faces, that they'll get better service if they have a CPoC "liaison" or "go-to person," how exactly does that differ from political extortion?

The new motto of the Conservative Party of Canada: "Nice riding you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."

[UPDATE: I've been told that The Star is working on this as we speak.]

[UPDATER: Alison seems to have found another one. See list below.][EVEN UPDATIER THAN THAT: Toronto Centre? See the addition at the bottom.][SUPER DUPER UPDATE: CTV is on the story. And the furious backpedaling begins. More below.]

Ah ... the beast awakes, and here's how it works. We hammered home the Montebello agent provocateur story and, within a day, there were public mea culpas and frantic finger-pointing. And we can do the same thing here.

IT KEEPS GOING AND GOING AND GOING ... From an earlier post, commenter Phyl writes:

CC, I had no idea this was a trend. Now I wish I had kept the letter I got two weeks ago from the Cons.

I'm in Toronto Centre, and the letter said that since Bill Graham had retired, our liaison would now be a Con MP. I don't remember the name (her name?), but I believe it was the Con party Whip.

I remember being extremely irritated, thinking, "Even if I don't have a sitting MP at the moment, do you think for a second I'll be going to a CON for help if I need it??" I'd be getting in touch with Stephane Dion or, more likely since I'm in Toronto, Jack Layton.

Anyone else from Toronto Centre have something to add to this?Never mind, false alarm on the Toronto Centre story. See Phyl's comment.SUPER DUPER UPDATE, REDUX: Unfortunately, while the CTV story is a start, it mentions only budding porn star Sharon Smith, and none of the other "go-to" eager beavers listed above. So when you read this:

Government officials have distanced themselves from Harris's unofficial appointment of Smith as the riding representative in Ottawa.

"He just kind of did that himself,'' government spokesman Ryan Sparrow said of Harris's move.

"(Smith) is the Conservative candidate in the next election. That's her only official capacity.''

Greetings all, sorry for being mostly absent this last while. I've been doing round upon round of physiotherapy, trying to get my spine to unlock. I've also been putting a lot of hours into developing a new business. My posting has always been sporadic but I will do my best to be a little more present. So...

Yesterday I happened to be having a nice chat with a local mayor. Since mayors have been at issue in the blogs lately, I decided to mention Mayor Smith from Houston and the nudie pics of doom. The reaction was a jaw dropping, wide-eyed gasp of shock. Followed by words like, "disgraceful", "disgusting" and "dishonour". Seems some of our municipal officials have a great deal of respect for the emblems of office. When I mentioned the newly minted position of liaison to the federal new government, i thought the poor mayor would do a spit take. I am hoping to grab an official interview in the next few days. I'll keep you posted.

JUST CURIOUS: GOP Senator Larry Craig's defense is that he just naturally takes a "wide stance" when he's doing his thing in a public stall. Which inspires me to ask: When your pants are down around your ankles, how exactly does that "wide stance" thing work?

The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

Ummmm ... you know, while 12.6 to 12.3 is a drop, I think it's charitable to call it a "sharp" drop. But hold on ... what's this?

Individual earnings dropped for both men and women in 2006, ...

They did? Then how ... I mean ... oh, here we go:

... but more members of each household worked, resulting in the overall increase in household income, said David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

Yeah, that's the kind of detail that deserves to be maybe a bit closer to the lede, don't you think?

In other ideologically similar news, the civilian death toll in Baghdad dropped sharply this month. Of course, the fact that there just aren't that many civilians left to kill might have something to do with it. I'm just sayin'.

While I would normally just stretch out on my lawn chair, crack open a beer and toss rocks at the BTs from a distance, there's an exciting new development about which I'd actually like your opinion.

I refer, of course, to the recent ugly trend of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to appoint what he calls "go-to liaisons" for federal ridings. Dr. Dawg not only discusses this disturbing pattern here, but he asks some basic questions regarding simple legality and constitutionality.

Regardless of the constitutionality, though, what is obvious is that this represents what can only be described as a subversion of the basic democratic process, wouldn't you say? When a riding elects their MP, one would think they have the right to expect that person to be their "liaison" to Parliament, as opposed to some arbitrarily-chosen, unelected, Conservative political hack.

And yet, despite the really disturbing concerns this raises, I notice that not a single member of the Blogging Tories -- not one -- has seen fit to even mention this issue, much less condemn it for its flagrantly anti-democratic stance. (Heck, even the clinically insane Richard Evans of "Let Freedom Reign" calls you out on this, and when you've lost a batshit crazy winger like Richard, well, that's gotta hurt.)

So what's the deal, Stephen? Does this "liaison" thing simply not bother you? Do you approve of it? Or are you just as appalled as the rest of us, but saying so would jeopardize your standing as obedient CPoC lapdog with all that cool insider access to the latest CPoC scuttlebutt that you're always bragging about?

Seriously, Steve -- the entirety of the Blogging Tories were nowhere to be seen during the Montebello controversy, and only showed up afterwards to generate the most lame-ass justifications for the undercover cops. And now, as this story threatens to heat up, they're once again missing in action.

What gives? Is it just coincidence? Or is it a policy over at the BTs that thou shalt simply not speak ill of Glorious Leader, no matter what the circumstances? Seriously, some of us would like to know. I mean, at one time, it used to be kind of amusing. Now, though, it really is starting to get a little creepy.

Yours in cynical curiosity,CC

BONUS TRACK: Via the Dawg, we learn that the MSM may not be as asleep at the wheel as we might think:

I can't spill the beans, sorry. But, have already received one response from a member of the MSM who asked for my 'patience', theer will be at least one column about it in the paper later this week.

How amusing. And if this story does hit the front pages, Taylor and his pandering BT entourage will once again be left standing at the station, watching the story recede into the distance, along with their credibility. What little is left of it.

Vancouver Island North MP Catherine Bell has already had a similar situation happen to her in her riding. Several months ago, the Tories named a candidate as the “go-to person” for the Conservative party, in what Cullen feels is an effort to undermine her and give the perception that she is not doing her job.

However, he is not sure yet if this practice is something the government has been doing across the whole country or not.

I believe we have our answer. Now we just have to wait for the MSM to finally clue in.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

You know, given the latest sordid, sexual GOP revelation, it might be appropriate to tell all those prissy, moralistic right-wing scolds that, regardless of what they think of Bill Clinton, he at least had the decency to have a consensual, heterosexual affair. With someone of legal age. Whose name he knew. In private.

Compared to modern-day Republicans, that almost passes for virtuous, doesn't it?

The leaders of Canada, Mexico and United States have a novel option for dealing with protesters: flip the channel.

Canadian officials who briefed reporters Thursday initially said that protesters would be allowed close to the hotel conference site in Montebello, Que., and would be visible to the leaders attending the North American summit next week.

But when pressed, they acknowledged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon would actually only be seeing those outside the security fences by video link.

And how does Buckler defend this obvious marginalization of legal protestors? Ah, here we go:

Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, later said she understood the video-link decision was "in compliance with the court's decision that protesters have a right to be 'seen and heard'."

Hmmmmmm ... you know, technically, that sounds legal ... until you learn that what Buckler is claiming is most emphatically notwhat the court actually said (emphasis added):

At future public order events, a generous opportunity should be afforded for peaceful protesters to see and be seen.

Well, now, that's not quite the same thing, is it? Once you learn the actual wording, it should be obvious that stuffing protestors at a distance certainly doesn't give them the opportunity to "see" much of anything. And when you further appreciate that they should have a "generous" opportunity to do so, it's now inarguable that stuffing them behind a switchable video feed violated their rights in a fairly obvious way.

Is it any wonder that Buckler chose to quietly reword the actual recommendation and hope no one noticed?

AFTERSNARK: The Gazetteer has a snippet from CTV's Jane Taber, showing that she also got snookered by Buckler's historical revisionism.

Bad journalist, Jane. No biscuit.BY THE WAY, I dropped a short e-mail to "programming@ctv.ca" with Taber's name in the subject field, and a simple hyperlink back to this post. I'll let you know what I hear back.

The saying "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson. We have yet to find any proof that Jefferson ever wrote such a thing; indeed, he seems to be all but contradicting such an idea in the following quotation:

"Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independant, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to it's liberty and interests by the most lasting bands. As long therefore as they can find emploiment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans, or any thing else." - Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 23 August 1785

The site created by Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant to promote a handgun ban in Canada, No Gun No Funeral, has strong links to the Liberal Party and to Michael Bryant in paticular. More information is available, and even more links are discovered.

No Gun No Funeral is the website created by Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant to promote his "No Gun No Funeral" push for a complete handgun ban in Canada. What makes No Gun No Funeral interesting was that it was created by "a group of Canadians" who support this ban idea. As it turned out, the group included two members of Michael Bryant's inner circle, Glenn Brown and Nikki Holland. The phone number associated with the website was answered by the Michael Bryant constituency office, announcing that you have reached the "Michael Bryant Election Campaign".

Of course, none of this was obvious from the website. The website was studiously anonymous. That is, until I helped reveal this information. A couple of radio interviews later, and Michael Bryant was compelled to admit that the site was his.

So, if I read this correctly, we have a carefully-concealed relationship that, through assiduous investigation, is finally revealed, forcing an embarrassing public admission.

Record low unemployment across parts of the West has created tough working conditions for business owners, who in places are being forced to boost wages or be creative to fill their jobs.

John Francis, who owns the McDonald's in Sidney, Mont., said he tried advertising in the local newspaper and even offered up to $10 an hour to compete with higher-paying oil field jobs. Yet the only calls were from other business owners upset they would have to raise wages, too. Of course, Francis' current employees also wanted a pay hike.

"I don't know what the answer is," Francis said. "There's just nobody around that wants to work."

One can certainly sympathize with Francis. After all, once you offer $10 an hour, and you still can't get any takers, why, it's just a mystery what you can possibly try after that. Yup, it's a real stumper.

This morning, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux reported that “very senior level sources” inside the administration are telling her that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff will replace Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Additionally, these sources say Chertoff will be replaced at Homeland Security by Clay Johnson III, the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget...

Johnson, who has no homeland security experience, is a professional Bush loyalist. While Johnson may have familiarity with some aspects of DHS’s budget, he appears to have no experience in the many responsibilities of the department, including immigration, air travel security, disaster response, and other aspects of our nation’s homeland defense.

My advice to all you Americans: If you haven't told your kids that you love them lately, now might be a good time. Trust me on this one.

Fresh on the news of Houston mayor and CPoC party MILF Sharon Smith's shiny new position as "liaison to the federal government" for the riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley, it seems that there's more where that came from:

Meet Brendan Bell, the North's very own right winger in residence. He is currently an MLA in the NWT assembly, but he is not running for re-election in the upcoming territorial election this October. And why is that? Well, he'll be running for the Conservatives against Western Arctic MP Dennis Bevington in the next federal election, but in the meantime he will be named - you guessed it - special liaison to the federal government for the people of the Western Arctic.

But, wait! What's this? There's no linky substantiation so, despite this being just a tail-waggingly exciting story, some of Tim's readers are having none of this:

One question, Tim? What's the source for this info? Has there been a media release issued? Unable to find anything.

Actually, Tim, could you answer Frank's question? I can't find this anywhere, and it would be nice to quote a direct source.

Yes, I listened to the Daybreak North audio clips early Sunday. Do we have a link for the Brendan Bell 'appointment'? I want to believe that it's true because I sense a pattern emerging - appoint a 'direct liaison to the federal government' in obscure, remote ridings with an NDP incumbent. But there is nothing corroborating what is stated in the post about Brendan Bell being appointed.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Yes, it's like kicking cripples out of their wheelchairs, but there's a guilty pleasure in hanging the wingnuttery of Blogging Tory Dr. Roy out where everyone can see it:

Gonzales has done what is best for the Bush administration. The dems seem to have forgotten that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He can hire and fire them at will. I must say Gonzales was not too good at managing this "scandal", but the whole thing was a non issue to begin with. In 1993 Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. The dems are only interested in investigations and not with governing.

And pay no attention to that perpetual lying to Congress under oath. That had nothing to do with it. Really.

As U.S. News' "Washington Whispers" first reported over the weekend, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is being floated as a possible permanent replacement for Gonzales. CNN is now reporting that Chertoff is the "likely" nominee. Considering that Chertoff presided over the Katrina disaster, his nomination as attorney general would be nothing short of unbelievable.

I think "unbelievable" is a good word here. But, really, would anything surprise you at this point?

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE TIME: One of the names being bandied about for a replacement here is sleazy, hypocritical douchebag Orrin Hatch. The Dems should decide right now that there are certain potential candidates they simply won't even consider, and Hatch should be one of them. But how to do this without appearing like they're picking on certain people? Ooooh, that's easy.

I'm guessing that it's Patrick Leahy, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who should take the microphone and announce something like the following:

Ladies and gentlemen, with the resignation of Mr. Gonzales, we expect the White House to be nominating someone fairly soon to replace him. And while we promise to give any candidate a fair and impartial hearing, we want to make clear that there is a limit to what we are prepared to accept.

Quite simply, we will, under no circumstances, even consider a candidate who has, over the last several months, been a staunch and unconditional defender of Mr. Gonzales. It would be the height of irresponsibility and sheer madness to have finally rid ourselves of Mr. Gonzales, only to replace him with someone who shares his perspective on the law.

This may sound harsh and closed-minded, but I'm sure you can appreciate that there is absolutely no point in ridding ourselves of Mr. Gonzales, only to then confirm someone who is virtually indistinguishable.

In my opinion, that would an irrefutable and devastating pre-emptive strike. In the first place, how could anyone argue against the logic? More importantly, though, it allows the Dems to strike off the list of possible candidates worthless, two-faced fucks like Hatch. If his name came up, all Leahy would have to do is refer to this, and the conversation would be over.

Given that Commander Chimpy McChimpster has already announced that he won't be making a nomination right away, this gives the Dems several days to prepare, and that's exactly what they need to do -- PREPARE! Sadly, though, if things run true to form, we can unfortunately count on the Dems to fuck around, waste time and be totally unprepared when the discussion starts.

It's sad but, really, as much as you might want to support the Democrats, it's almost impossible to find a more disorganized, self-destructive group of retarded misfits anywhere. And I'm being charitable.

Unbeknownst to him, Public Security Minister Stockwell Day has suddenly changed all the rules (emphasis added):

"The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence," Day said Friday in Vancouver.

"They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this," said Day, adding the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.

"Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that's a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters."

So, if I'm reading this correctly, "Doris" is telling us that he has no problem with the QPP infiltrators because, despite the fact that they were masked and carrying dangerous objects, they didn't actually, technically, do anything "violent," per se. And doesn't that just open up the field wide for future protests?

By Day's own admission, it should now be considered perfectly acceptable to gather in large crowds, fully masked and wielding dangerous objects, as long as you don't, you know, do anything with them. This bandanna? Hey, it's my right. Stockie said so. And this lead pipe? I call him "Whappy." And there's nothing you can do about it, because Stockie has given me his blessing to conceal my identity and carry a lead pipe, or a bottle, or a rock, or a length of bicycle chain, as long as I behave myself.

And isn't that going to make, say, future Pro-Life rallies more entertaining when all those fetus-worshipping, bible-whomping whackjobs are suddenly confronted by a small group of masked, black-clad, brick-wielding dissenters, who can now take comfort in the fact that there's not a fucking thing the cops or the RCMP can do about them as long as they behave, since all they need to do is whip out their Stockwell Day "Get out of custody free" card and they're good to go. Oh, yeah, the rules have changed, and things just got a lot more exciting.

Good job, Stockie. I'm sure the Canadian law enforcement community can't wait to tell you how much they appreciate what you just did for them. And if they show up carrying tire irons, well, not to worry. Last time I looked, tire irons are still perfectly legal, right?

OH, SIGH ... Apparently, even some of my regular readers are suggesting I have strayed beyond the bounds of decorum here, to which, after considerable thought, I have decided to respond: Bite me.

No, no, just kidding. But, in all seriousness, are some of you still fantasizing that we can have a civil discussion with these people? That we should somehow show we are better and not stoop to their level? What are you smoking?

We have a government whose Minister of Public Safety has absolutely no problem with sending masked, armed thugs into a perfectly peaceful public protest for the obvious purpose of inciting violence to discredit the entire protest, and you think I'm going to play nice? Good luck.

When the CPoC perpetually holds itself up as the morals and values standard to which all the rest of us should aspire, you damn betcha I'm going to take every opportunity to out one of their members as a soft-core porn, cheap tramp. Bring it on, baby -- you got more pics, I got more blog space. Let the good times roll.

And, besides, if this is what it takes to get the other half of the story out there, hey, so be it. Maybe the MSM will actually cover the latter half of this travesty now. Whatever it takes, folks. Whatever it takes.

I swear, the next time I hear someone contemptuously dismiss the outrageous left-wing bias of the CBC, I will find a blunt instrument and go to work.

At the moment, CBC Radio One is broadcasting a fawning, asinine interview with religious crackpot Francis Collins, and the scientific illiteracy is too much to handle on a full stomach.

If I can find a transcript, things are going to get ugly. Host Mary Hynes should be embarrassed to be seen in public after this travesty of a program.JUST TO GET YOU STARTED, here's an appropriately savage smackdown of Collins. Feel free to leave similar eviscerations in the comments section.

... are we going to have to listen to yet more wankerific variations of, "Undercover provocateurs? Yeah, right ... as if. What kind of brain-damaged, moonbat conspiracy theory is that? I mean, what in God's name would be the point!? And now you're all babbling about yellow triangles on boots!? Holy crap, give me a break! Man, talk about a bunch of whiny, paranoid ... paranoid ... oh, so they really were undercover cops? Well, uh, of course, what did you expect, it makes perfect sense. If they weren't there, they wouldn't be doing their jobs, right? What's your problem?"

Today's Blogging Tory contestant (since he actually explicitly asked for my opinion) is one "Christian Conservative", who we shall dub "ChCon" for short, and who demonstrates no more logic than his BT colleagues:

My view on the SQ posing as protesters

Man ... that's pathetic -- can't even past the title without starting to dissemble. They weren't just "posing as protestors," ChCon, they were dressed to provoke violence. What the fuck part of that do you just not grok? But the Born Again wankitude continues in a steady stream:

Now that the Quebec police have come out and admitted their men were there posing as protesters, I think the whole way everything went down actually makes more sense... at least to me. All you have to do is just think about it logically for a minute...

Ah, yes ... a self-admitted "Born-Again Christian, redeemed by the shed blood of the risen and eternal Lord Jesus Christ," encouraging us not to abandon logic for what follows. Oh, man, you just know this is going to be tail-waggingly good:

Various protests in recent years have gotten violent, and its sometimes hard for police to control the situation, get accurate intel, and determine who should be charged and such after the fact. So, it makes sense to have your own men amongst the crowd.

However, a kink was thrown into the works this time... the union folks who decided to show up and form their own buffer line, seperating the police and the protesters. By setting up their own buffer line (with good intent I think), they were cutting off the officers from their own lines! Of COURSE, when your in a hostile situation, you're going to want to keep within eyes and arms reach of your collegues!

Well, of course, that's it. Because when you're trying to blend in with a large crowd of protestors, nothing says "solidarity" like insisting on hanging out comfortably, arms distance from the local constabulary. Really, must I continue?

But ChCon isn't finished; apparently, there's some fragile shred of logic and reason that he still needs to take out back and pistol whip:

As for the cop who was holding a rock... perhaps in his mind, it was just a prop to help him blend in. (so long as he was only copying what he saw others doing, and not starting the trend amongst the protesters)

Good point, ChCon -- walking around, completely masked and carrying a dangerous rock was just the thing to help him blend in, since all it did was provoke numerous protestors to scream at him to drop said rock, all recorded on video. An absolute master of disguise, that one.

Bottom line is, it all makes logical sense to me.

And I'm sure that doesn't surprise a single one of my readers even a little bit. Not anymore.

Grab some coffee, pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable, 'cuz this is going to take a while. This post has been brewing for quite some time, but the events of the last few days and this pompous bit of fluff from Blogging Tory Joseph Lavoie finally drove me to it:

Who’s better at using Internet: liberals or conservatives?

This week, Jonah Goldberg of the LA Times, wrote an interesting column on the common perception that liberals/progressives are better at the Web because the it is increasingly powered by social media - a hard medium for Republicans work with. Republicans, the story goes, specialize in “command and control” techniques, while Democrats embrace the bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet.

Yeah, yeah, whatever ... Mr. Doughy Pantload takes time from not writing his precious book to wank off another meaningless piece for his adoring groupies. But here's where the fun starts, as Mr. Lavoie's trip along Reality Road veers wildly into the ditch:

That’s why Conservatives in Canada tend to be ahead of the game, and have a strong presence. Blogging Tories.ca, the brain child of Stephen Taylor who’s done some great work pointing out flaws in CBC’s reporting, has played an important role in promoting the CP in the blogosphere.

If one pops over to the BT site and spends a few minutes poking around, there's no question that there's some fancy stuff going down over there. Some seriously geeky, whiz-bang, high-tech gee-gaws and doo-dads and hee-haws and neat-o stuff like that there. You got your frames, and your forums, and your tools, and your Blogging Tories Television, and more cool stuff than you can shake Ann Coulter's dick at. But in the midst of all that space-age wizardry, Mr. Lavoie, there is, sadly, one thing missing -- what you don't have is content that is worth shit.

Quite simply, Joseph, my boy, what you have is the ultimate layer of high-tech lipstick slathered all over the ugliest pig in existence, because all the nifty bells and whistles just can't hide the fact that the output of that entire blogging collective is, in a nutshell, utter fucking crap. Oh, I'm sorry, you want me to back that up? My pleasure.

Anyone who's spent any time getting their fill of the wretched production of the BTs has undoubtedly come to realize that most of them are worthless hacks but, amusingly, they're worthless hacks in fairly predictable ways, because they conveniently fit into some painfully obvious categories, which I will now proceed to explain.

First, and most harmlessly, there are the mindless stenographers. These are the people who have apparently never had an original thought in their lives. Examples such as Wayne and Jonathan Strong leap immediately to mind. These are the people for whom no right-wing talking point is too minor, inane or implausible to link to adoringly. It's not that wanks like Wayne and Jonathan are necessarily stupid or dishonest. Rather, it's that they are utterly without value, given that their entire output could easily be replaced with a generic blog named "Stuff you should read that I agree with." In short, they contribute absolutely nothing to the discourse. (There are, of course, other BTs who fall into this category, but Wayne and Jonathan were the two who came to mind first. In any event, onward.)

Once we get past the stenographers, we find ourselves in the land of the "voices in my head" clinically deranged, and by deranged, I hold up as the setter of all standards deranged-related one Dr. Roy and his intellectual colleagues.

Dr. Roy is no simple stenographer. Instead, Dr. Roy's modus operandi is to take normal news, and add his own layer of demented, right-wing propaganda to everything he touches, to the point where one wonders just how the good doctor functions in normal society, and who helps him dress himself in the morning. (There are, of course, other BTs who are similarly afflicted but, really, not one of them can compete with the doctor in terms of pure, unadulterated batshit craziness.)

Moving on, we might find ourselves in the land of the pompous, pretentious blowhards and self-absorbed, sycophantic lapdogs, and if the name "Adam Daifallah" didn't come screaming into your consciousness, then you just haven't been paying attention. Really, there's only so much nausea-inducing hero worship of Mark Steyn or Conrad Black you can take before you have to step outside for some fresh air and let your gorge settle again. And you might want to do that to brace yourself for what comes next.

Because what comes next are the hatemongers and bigots, led by the bile-spewing racist Kathy Shaidle. Of course, Kathy doesn't hold a monopoly on BT bigotry -- one has to give some props to relative newcomer MaryT, whose recent hompohobic ugliness drove even her co-blogger Brian Lemon to delete her post outright.

And who could possibly overlook The Politic's Aaron (Spanky) Unruh, whose perky, contemptuous (and subsequently edited to be less embarrassing) dismissal of female genital mutilation will be seen as a standard for years to come?

(Honourable mention should also go to one A. Carleton Sallet over at Upper Canada Catholic, who can always be counted on to say something appropriately prejudiced or misogynistic. He's still a second-tier player, but keep an eye on him, folks -- I think he's going places.)

And finally, the category you've all been waiting for -- the flat-out, sleazy, dishonest douchebags for integrity, those people who will lie about anything and everything, a category led by (like you didn't see this coming) Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™, Kate McMillan. And, seriously, you can't possibly need evidence from me on this point, can you? Just set aside an hour or eight and search the archives of this blog, if you have the stomach for it. But Kate isn't alone, of course.

Bloggy dishonesty doesn't just involve lying about stuff in real time, oh no. It also includes printing irresponsible crap, having it exposed as irresponsible crap, then refusing to ever go back to correct the record -- sort of like what the hacktacular Brian Lemon did here. And, trust me, I simply don't have enough disk space to document all of the BTs who published crap, got called on it, yet quietly shuffled on with nary a backward glance of regret or apology. Well, OK, just this one. But that's all you get.

[ADDENDUM, Mon, Aug 27: I would be remiss in not pointing out how the inimitable Mr. Lemon couldn't even keep track of his own lies here. No, no, don't thank me -- think of it as a public service. You're welcome.]

And there is one more category I'll throw in here for good measure, and that's the members of the BT collective who are just plain -- what's the word I'm looking for here -- oh, right ... "creepy." What other word can you use to describe Boy Detective Steve Janke, whose obsession with detail extends to digging into someone's gynecological records in excruciating detail? Or the fetus-obsessed SUZANNE, whose raging dementia extends to encouraging all her colleagues to freep an online poll, then treat the results as if they meant something, but is of course better known for being hideously obsessed over abortion every waking moment of the day. (I'm not sure the word "creepy" is even sufficient here, but it will have to do.)

But perhaps the most compelling evidence of the utter dumbass wankitude of the entire BT collective is the last few days, during which, while the progressive blogosphere both in Canada and (to a lesser extent) in the U.S. went ballistic over the underhanded tactics of police officers at Montebello, hundreds of BTs were utterly and unforgivably missing in action. One of the biggest stories to hit the media this year, and virtually every Blogging Tory couldn't be bothered to get off his or her ass to raise even a minor protest.

And to add insult to injury, after having mocked, derided and dismissed as moonbats and conspiracy theorists all those bloggers, only to have those same moonbats ultimately proven correct, the general reaction from the BTs was not to sheepishly and graciously apologize, but to move the goalposts and whine how, "Well, of course, there should be undercover officers, what's wrong with that?" Or, even worse, to now completely misrepresent the issue, as previously-referenced BT and total airhead Dave Hodson did here:

Why shouldn’t police plant undercover operatives at events that have a potential to turn violent? It provides another opportunity to observe behaviour to control violent developments before they arise and perhaps offers a better chance to apprehend the offenders. If the officers are only there to blend in and take action when events go beyond being a peaceful protest, then how are any rights to peaceful protest being curtailed? Nobody has a right to conduct illegal violent protests, which are the ones that undercover police are trying to prevent.

A "strong presence," you say, Mr. Lavoie? Surely you jest. One can't begin to count the number of major stories from which the BTs couldn't avert their eyes fast enough. The selective reporting and hypocrisy is almost beyond description.

Blogging Tories.ca, the brain child of Stephen Taylor who’s done some great work pointing out flaws in CBC’s reporting,

Yes, Joseph, it's incredibly important for Taylor and his BT buddies to sit next to their TiVOs, recording every CBC newscast and replaying them slower and slooooower until, Holy Liberal Media, Batman ... left-wing bias!! That's pretty rich coming from a group of bloggers who, if you believe their blogrolls, subsist on a steady diet of Fox News, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Free Republic. The mote in one's eye and all that, Joseph, if you catch my drift.

Anyway, I think I'm done for now, but I reserve the right to come back to this piece and revise it, not to edit out any embarrassing errors, but just to extend it with more material, whenever the hell I feel like it. It's hard to hold back from adding example after example of BT worthlessness and dumbassery but, when there's an infinite supply, well, it's like with good single-malt scotch -- you really do need to know when to say "When."